Training treats considered as detrimental

[JohnLloydJones]

Mr McCaig, I don't think you see mannerly off leash dogs in your travels because for most people that is not their goal, there are very few places in an urban / surburban setting where one can walk a dog without a leash legally. So why spend the time teaching the dog a skill it will not use. My own dogs either ride in the car to get to a place to exercise, or they walk on a leash, if they accompany me to a local store it is on leash, it's a $75.00 fine for an unleashed dog something I am willing to risk for exercise and entertainment purposes but not going down the sidewalk.

There is a leash law where I live too. From people who have been fined, I have been told it's $250 per dog here. Also, there is the practical fact of traffic and distractions, so a leash is a safety belt (both for my dogs and my wallet), but not a means of control. If I drag the dog by the leash (or the dog drags me) then we're doing it all wrong. That's why I work off-leash as much (and as early) as possible.

[alligande]

There is a leash law where I live too. From people who have been fined, I have been told it's $250 per dog here. Also, there is the practical fact of traffic and distractions, so a leash is a safety belt (both for my dogs and my wallet), but not a means of control. If I drag the dog by the leash (or the dog drags me) then we're doing it all wrong. That's why I work off-leash as much (and as early) as possible.

I also teach my dog off leash, and like you use a leash as a safety belt... My observations are about Mr McCaigs assumption that the goal of training a pet dog is for it to be mannerly off leash, and as he is not observing this then there is something lacking in the training. Due to the impractical nature of having a dog off leash in many municipalities, you are simply not going to see well cared for dogs off leash.

[JohnLloydJones]

Due to the impractical nature of having a dog off leash in many municipalities, you are simply not going to see well cared for dogs off leash.

I believe that Donald is suggesting that dogs should be well mannered -- at which point, using a leash or not becomes moot (apart from practical considerations I mentioned above). Alas, well mannered dogs have become a rarity (although I can count more than Donald's "two fingers of one hand"). In part, leash laws have contributed to this. If you have a solid leash to control your dog, you don't need to train manners*. And of course, the rational for leash laws is un-trained/ill-mannered dogs.

 

Note*: ... and the smaller they are the more this applies.

[Shetlander]

I believe that Donald is suggesting that dogs should be well mannered -- at which point, using a leash or not becomes moot (apart from practical considerations I mentioned above). Alas, well mannered dogs have become a rarity (although I can count more than Donald's "two fingers of one hand"). In part, leash laws have contributed to this. If you have a solid leash to control your dog, you don't need to train manners*. And of course, the rational for leash laws is un-trained/ill-mannered dogs.

 

Note*: ... and the smaller they are the more this applies.

 

Actually, that isn't my experience at all. I run into plenty of big, badly mannered dogs. And if my dog is going to be accosted, I much prefer it to be a small dog rather than one who could start a bad dog fight. At least I don't need to fear for Quinn if a little guy takes him on.

 

From what I can tell, the vast majority of people do next to no training with their dogs beyond housebreaking and maybe a couple commands, if that. It isn't the training methods that are at fault for all the badly behaved dogs one see but lack of training or even much in the way of understanding what a dog needs from his owner.

 

ETA And Donald did reference mannerly off lead dogs, which is a wonderful thing but not a safe practice for many of us in our daily lives. I used to see a guy walking his well trained Golden off leash through a small but bustling downtown. The sight never filled me with admiration. Instead, I always thought he was being arrogant and careless to put his beautiful dog at risk like that. It only takes a couple seconds for the dog to be a dog responding to some stimuli, step into the wrong place before you can call him back, and get hit by a car. Then congratulations, you now own the best trained dead dog in town.

[JohnLloydJones]

From what I can tell, the vast majority of people do next to no training with their dogs beyond housebreaking and maybe a couple commands, if that. It isn't the training methods that are at fault for all the badly behaved dogs one see but lack of training or even much in the way of understanding what a dog needs from his owner.

Training for a lot of dog owners means taking their dog to class at a big-box pet store, where they learn to get their dog to sit and come on command; at least in the small enclosed space where the class is taught. Whatever value such classes may have, they should be nothing but the beginning of a long journey. For most dogs, that's where training ends.

Oh and even if my guys are bigger than the attack Shih Tzu or Chihuahua, I know that I will get screamed at by the owner if their precious gets hurt. Here's the scenario: my dog goes up to a small dog to say Hi. Snotty little small dog attacks without warning. I call off and grab my dog and see her nose is bloodied. Precious little small dog is fine, but I get screamed at for not controlling my dog.

[Shetlander]

Oh and even if my guys are bigger than the attack Shih Tzu or Chihuahua, I know that I will get screamed at by the owner if their precious gets hurt. Here's the scenario: my dog goes up to a small dog to say Hi. Snotty little small dog attacks without warning. I call off and grab my dog and see her nose is bloodied. Precious little small dog is fine, but I get screamed at for not controlling my dog.

 

I don't let my dog go up to strange dogs to say hi. The scenario you describe is far too common with dogs of all sizes. Maybe because I have a snotty little dog myself, I get tired of the sterotype that they are the worst when I have had my dogs threatened or attacked by labs, malamutes, akitas, shepherds, and of course pit bull types. I will always prefer a snotty little dog with weak jaw strength that even Quinn, the Coward of the County, could knock into next week. I'd would much rather be yelled at than deal with a badly bitten dog or worse. But in general, I avoid casual contact with dogs we run into on our walks.

[Sekah]

Oh and even if my guys are bigger than the attack Shih Tzu or Chihuahua, I know that I will get screamed at by the owner if their precious gets hurt. Here's the scenario: my dog goes up to a small dog to say Hi. Snotty little small dog attacks without warning. I call off and grab my dog and see her nose is bloodied. Precious little small dog is fine, but I get screamed at for not controlling my dog.

 

If your off leash dog approaches another dog without your specific say-so, your dog is not under control. The screaming owner would be correct.

 

My goal is to live life off-leash with my dog. I've found food to be much more useful and effective in training manners than I have verbal praise/punishment. A harsh word rolls right off her like water off a duck's back, and praise isn't sufficiently reinforcing for lasting behaviour change. Her personality is not that of a hyper-social, sensitive dog. She's rough and tumble and can be a handful at times. But, she lives life off leash for the most part, competes in obedience and a handful of other more intrinsically rewarding sports. For me, food is what works, and I have been very happy with the results.

[JohnLloydJones]

I don't let my dog go up to strange dogs to say hi.

This was at a dog park, and my dog (a foster) was going the rounds to greet everyone.

[Shetlander]

This was at a dog park, and my dog (a foster) was going the rounds to greet everyone.

 

I was just saying I personally choose not to get into those situations. The older I get, the more cautious/suspicious of other dogs and their owners I become. I know there are great dog parks out there but they aren't something my dogs need or anything I am interested in.

[rushdoggie]

I don't let my dog go up to strange dogs to say hi. The scenario you describe is far too common with dogs of all sizes. Maybe because I have a snotty little dog myself, I get tired of the sterotype that they are the worst when I have had my dogs threatened or attacked by labs, malamutes, akitas, shepherds, and of course pit bull types. I will always prefer a snotty little dog with weak jaw strength that even Quinn, the Coward of the County, could knock into next week. I'd would much rather be yelled at than deal with a badly bitten dog or worse. But in general, I avoid casual contact with dogs we run into on our walks.

 

Yep. I have 2 small dogs and a Border Collie and mine have never seen the inside of a dog park and likely won't, because I don't trust the average person to have any control of their dogs. Mine may be snotty little dogs, but they come when called and can do a down stay while I step forward and ask the owners of the loose dog in question to please control their dog and keep them at a safe distance, I am usually told its OK they are friendly (while the dog in question approaches stiffly, hackles raised) and get yelled at for having my dogs in public if they are "not friendly."

 

Stupid owners walk all sizes of dogs.

 

[D'Elle]

................... I wonder how valid this sort of testing is. The value of a reward is really specific to the individual being rewarded.

^ this

 

 

Which sounds like someone who is using food in an imprecise way (the fact the he or she REFUSES to use a clicker is telling, like I will follow half the suggestions offered but only half) which will lead to mugging, the dog targeting the treat bag, etc.

 

One can train imprecise behaviors no matter what method they use.

and this^

 

Just don't disparage those who prefer to work by building a rapport with their dog.

I think it is a shame to assume that one who uses food rewards in training is failing to work by building rapport with the dog.

My opinion is that the relationship with the dog is the most important thing to establish in training. Suzanne Clothier is my dog relationship- centered training guru. She uses food, praise, the reward of letting the dog do what he wants to do (like, go out the door after a nice sit/wait), toys and play.... whatever works as long as it is kind, and strengthens the relationship rather than damaging trust. Truly this is the most important thing.

 

I have trained Jes to do musical freestyle with me. I started training with praise and treats, and noticed how much faster he learned new things once I started using a clicker and treats a couple of years later. Now, Jes is a ball/frisbee dog. He lives for a throw of the frisbee. But I cannot use it to train, because his attention becomes focused entirely on the frisbee and he won't concentrate on anything else. Treats are actually a lesser reward for him, so in his case that is what works best. I have had to work hard on my own technique, however. I started out unskillfully and as a result Jes has to at least believe that I have food on me before we go into the ring to dance. I could correct that, (it wouldn't be easy) but at his age I am not going to bother.

If you use treats and do not use them correctly you will create a dog who is, as mentioned previously, mugging you for food or pointing his nose at your hands or the treat bag all the time, or who won't work for you unless he smells food on you. That's just skill or lack thereof in the use of the treats in training.

 

Training is conditioning. (Just as all of our other relationships are conditioning.) The only question is, are you conditioning the dog to do something because doing anything else results in pain, fear, and/or bad feelings.....or are you conditioning the dog to do things because the result of doing them is something good from the dog's perspective.

 

 

My terrier, Digger, will do anything I have taught him whether or not I have a treat nearby. But he is confident that he will get a treat at some point, because I trained the behavior using treats. And if, this time, he doesn't get a treat at the end it doesn't keep him from the hope that next time he will. I think this is because I have at least somewhat improved my skill in using the treats to train. Digger, without being clingy or overly dependent, is intensely interested in doing anything, anything at all, that involves being with me. Although he has only been with me a year and a half, he is powerfully bonded to me. It is hard for me to believe that just because I am using treats to train new behaviors in him I am not working by building rapport with this dog.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I am grateful for the explanation of why I almost never see mannerly dogs off-leash. Since I see lots of off leash unmannerly dogs, can I presume mannerly off-leash dogs belong to scrupulously law abiding owners?

 

Donald McCaig

[Shetlander]

Dear Doggers,

 

I am grateful for the explanation of why I almost never see mannerly dogs off-leash. Since I see lots of off leash unmannerly dogs, can I presume mannerly off-leash dogs belong to scrupulously law abiding owners?

 

Donald McCaig

 

I would imagine it depends on the leash laws or lack thereof.

[Eileen Stein]

Training is conditioning. (Just as all of our other relationships are conditioning.)

 

I have not found it to be the case that all of my relationships are conditioning. I suppose that mum24dog will consider that "an ego thing" on my part, and that my naiveté will make Shetlander "smile." But it's certainly understandable that those, like you, who consider all of our relationships to be nothing more than conditioning would reject the possibility of any deeper bond arising from a different type of training.

 

[Shetlander]

I have not found it to be the case that all of my relationships are conditioning. I suppose that mum24dog will consider that "an ego thing" on my part, and that my naiveté will make Shetlander "smile." But it's certainly understandable that those, like you, who consider all of our relationships to be nothing more than conditioning would reject the possibility of any deeper bond arising from a different type of training

 

 

I didn't smile over the commenter's naivete, but rather the idea that because I use treats and toys for training, I then somehow don't have a mutual regard with my dogs. I smiled because it is so off the mark. To be completely honest, I chuckled when I read it because that is just not what I personally find in my relationship with my dogs.

 

I am not accusing anyone here mistreating their dogs or of making their dogs obey out of fear. I haven't said I am building a deeper bond with my dogs than others who train differently. I keep trying to point out if your training method works for you, that is great for both you and your dogs. I know everyone here loves their dogs, wants what is best for them, and is giving them great care, including good training. We don't have to agree on ONE way to train (thank goodness!). But because I try to use positive reinforcement, including treats, as much as possible with my dogs I don't have a rapport with them? And since I live in an area with leash laws and a good number of cars, my dog isn't trained well as evidenced by the leash he wears on our walks?

 

I have used a variety of training methods over the past 40 years. Treats never entered the picture until 11 years ago. I loved all my dogs and they all appeared deeply bonded to me. I am simply using an approach that I find works quite effectively for me and my dogs at this time in my life. I am willing to bet my training will be somewhat different 10 years from now. But sorry if I smile and shake my head over the implication that my bond with my dogs is inferior to those who train without treats.

[Diana A]

I think it is a shame to assume that one who uses food rewards in training is failing to work by building rapport with the dog.

My opinion is that the relationship with the dog is the most important thing to establish in training. .

 

I use food rewards to train my dogs in agility. The food is just a tool, not the whole picture. Relationship is important too. None of my adult dogs would go off and run agility with anyone else when I was around, not even someone they knew and liked and no matter how many treats or toys were offered. They'd rather stay by me in anticipation of doing something with me than go work with someone else, even doing something they love.

 

The food is an attitude-enhancing part of the 'figure out what I want you to do' game. But I'm sure a large part of the training enjoyment comes from us doing something together. The thing is, we are still working together even when the dog is wrong - "relationship" can't be turned on and off to identify the exact second a paw moves the right direction. Praise is nice, but I pet and praise my dogs quite often for no reason at all, whereas the training treats only come out for training time. The prospect of something special increases the dog's enthusiasm for the task, especially when sometimes the dog may really be having to work hard to figure out what is wanted.

 

My dogs will also work for play, which is very intense interaction with me (not just "oh here have a toy and go amuse yourself" but that I enthusiastically join in the play). It does not necessarily always involve a toy, but I've found a toy is a really good idea when training my schutzhund-line Belgians - it's very hard for them to totally get involved in play without wanting to grab and bite something. I suppose you could call that praise, if a somewhat over-the-top version of it. Just 'good dog' and a pat on the head doesn't measure up to a more physical, exciting level of praise, like tug, wrestling, or chase. Play is just not appropriate for some training situations, such as stationary work or precise positioning of body parts. That is where the treats work really well because the dog can get a treat while still maintaining position whereas play would disturb the very activity that you're trying to teach.

 

Now I have seen people come through training classes with a poor relationship with the dog and they think the food will do the work for them. Just dispense treats like a robot at the specified time. Those student rarely do well and they often end up with a dog who may learn tasks, but would just as soon go sniff dust bunnies in the corner as work with the handler. Treats can also be used wrong - just lure the dog into doing things, which gives the appearance that you're teaching something, when really nothing is going on in the dog's head except to follow the treat when presented, so obviously when the treat isn't there, neither is the behavior. I guess I could see that as one way treats can be detrimental (when used wrong) because they can give the APPEARANCE of productive training, which will fall apart as soon as the food goes away either because there's no underlying relationship, or because the food wasn't being used properly and therefore nothing was actually taught.

[D'Elle]

I have not found it to be the case that all of my relationships are conditioning. I suppose that mum24dog will consider that "an ego thing" on my part, and that my naiveté will make Shetlander "smile." But it's certainly understandable that those, like you, who consider all of our relationships to be nothing more than conditioning would reject the possibility of any deeper bond arising from a different type of training.

 

Gosh, Eileen, I think you completely misunderstood me.

I did not mean that all of our relationships are "nothing more than conditioning". And I Certainly do not "reject the possibility of any deeper bond arising from a different type of training". I cannot imagine how you got that out of my post, but I will try to clarify.

 

All I meant by relationships being conditioning is that, if you have a certain type of experience with one person you will come to expect that kind of experience with that person. If, for instance, every time the topic of politics comes up with this person he or she goes into a half hour rant, you will learn not to bring up politics. To me, that is conditioning. If every time you ask a person to come do something with you they say no, after a while you stop asking. If every time you reach out your hand to your spouse he or she takes it and smiles at you with love, you will learn that reaching out your hand to that person is a good thing. That is all I meant by conditioning.

 

With dogs it is exactly the same thing. And that is all I meant about that.

My dogs are conditioned to react to me in a certain way when I do or say a certain thing.

I am conditioned, equally, to react to them in certain ways. For example, each has a different way of telling me they need to go out to potty, and I know what they are telling me. This is conditioning. Or you can call it communication. Doesn't matter. If you are offended by the term "conditioning" then don't use it. but I was not using it in any way meant to be diminishing of relationships.

 

This conditioning I refer to doesn't have anything to do with having a deep bond. I have very deep bonds with my animals (and with my friends), as you might have been able to determine from my posts over the years.

 

And I never said, here or elsewhere, that any one kind of training precluded the development of a deep bond with an animal. I said the opposite. What I said was that I found it unfortunate that anyone would think that because a person used treats for training it meant they are not working by building rapport with the dog.

[D'Elle]

Actually, I will modify that last comment of mine. Although I don't think I have necessarily ever said so on these Boards before, I DO have the opinion that using physical brutality to train a dog would quite possibly preclude the development of a deep bond with that dog.

[Root Beer]

Honestly, the idea that using food in training somehow nullifies the potential for an indescribably deep bond between dog and handler is amusing to me. Especially when I look at Tessa and I alone know the depth of the bond we share, how incredibly unlikely the development of that bond was to begin with, and both the role that training that incorporated the use of food played in forging that bond, and the role that food did not play.

[D'Elle]

Eileen has pointed out to me how what I said could be misinterpreted, which is helpful to me. In the future I will be sure to say something more like "conditioning is a part of all relationships" so no one thinks that what I am saying is that I think that conditioning is the nature of all relationships, and that they are nothing more than that. That is most certainly not how I view things!

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

As I have sometimes noted, quasi religious (magical?) thinking is a feature of much dog talk and this discussion latterly has been a good example. How am I to distinguish my relationship with Fly from my elderly neighbor's relationship with her obese, yappy feist or Ms. Shetlander's with her dog(s)? I can't and won't. There's loves and loves folks. All of 'em's good, some may be better.

 

As for off-lead control: If you train on leash - with or without treats, with or without an ecollar, that leash will always be your default. The notion the leash is omnipresent because leash trainers are exceptionally law abiding is silly, that it is necessary because of car danger proves my point. If, without a leash, your dog can't be prevented from dashing into traffic you do not have off lead control.

 

Count the number of offlead dogs you see in the parking lot or on the grounds at the favored motel for the next obedience or agility test/trial/training conference.

 

Donald McCaig

[alligande]

Mr McCaig, I don't disagree with you on many points, but I am sticking with my observation that we realistically do not know how many of those dogs are able to walk through that parking lot off leash. My own dog is more than able to do it but we don't because convention dictates he has a leash on, I have a lot anti-establishment tendencies but try to avoid uneccasery conflicts. Attend a USDAA agility trial that has no requirements for leashes and you will see a lot of well behaved dogs off leash, attend a NADAC trial, you will see none.

 

It has also been observed that this need for a leash is not a reflection of training techniques, but lack of training, this I think is the reality. Living in a town, I meet dogs almost everytime we go for a walk and it is rare to meet a well behaved dog. I am often asked who trained my dog, did it take a long time, is it because he is a border collie, did I send him away. I have given up sugar coating it, my response is now, it takes time, lots of time, consistency and you practise for life, completing a puppy class does not give you a well behaved dog.

[Shetlander]

Donald, I consider that I have off leash control of my dogs, but obviously not the same control you have over your dogs. I would feel I was gambling with my dog's lives if I insisted that my off leash control is 100% at all times in all situations. I also take an extra few seconds to crate or buckle them in for even a short ride in the car. I certainly don't intend to crash my car but accidents still are known to happen.

 

Since I no longer stay in motels with my dogs, I won't be counting the dogs off leash in parking lots. I will just continue to walk through my subdivision with my dog on leash, a sad commentary on his lack of training. The fact that nobody in my neighborhood walks their dog without a leash couldn't be due to the culture and leash laws around here. No, that would be silly. I take that back, there is a woman who runs with her dog off leash early in the morning. She needs to, I imagine, because there are very few cars at that time and not many people are awake to see her sprinting along, ignoring her dog leaving piles on their front lawns.

 

And by the way, in a recent post you commented:

Practitioners of every method have TRULY DREADFUL horror stories about those who prefer other methods. Lies in the service of one's dogfaith are commonplace.

 

In case my story of the Lhasa being twirled through the air by leash corrections or the dog found cowering in a closet after being corrected for chewing are examples of such lies, I object. I witnessed that poor Lhasa's treatment in a Koehler based obedience class back in the early 80's. I didn't see the chewing dog's misery. I only listened to his owner describe using that technique of correction and her regret long after the dog had died because she felt she traumatized an animal she loved. Maybe she lied. I did not. I do not feel my training techniques are a religion. They are simply techniques I find helpful for training my own dogs to my own satisfaction for the lives we lead, however inferior that may appear to those who use different techniques.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

I've heard too many TRULY DREADFUL horror stories. This "Positive Trainer" derided by that "Traditional Trainer", that Koehler (based?) trainer who did such WICKED things. And of course there's that UNSPEAKABLE Cesar Milan and anyone who uses a shock collar is a BRUTE.

 

Good marketing. Not particularly helpful to dogs.

 

Donald McCaig

[Shetlander]

Not sure what I am "marketing." Yes, it was Koehler based. The Man himself was not teaching the class. And yes, I now think repeatedly sending a small dog flying through the air by jerking his leash is wrong. I use the word WICKED differently than you, however.

 

Not even sure what your point is. No doubt this sort of dimness on my part is why I walk my dog on a leash in the town where we live. Poor Quinn. Stuck with likes of me. Chili, the hard headed (some would say "stupid") little dog is probably relieved, however.